Wikiality talk:Sound Advice/Grading
I made a few adjustments to the scale/template. Obviously, you can see these changes in the history, but I wanted to explain why I made them, just in case anyone cares. Or in case anyone wishes to debate me. I will win, though, because I studied at the Stephen Colbert School of Ass-Kicking Debater Techniques for Kicking Ass in All Debates. Anyway... 1. I changed "randomness" to "truthiness." I feel this is a good change because it keeps us grading everything on a positive scale, rather than grading for 3 things we do want (beauty, Stephen Colbert Experience, SPG), and one thing we don't (randomness). 2. I changed "Level of Stephen" in the template description to "Level of It-Getting," because I don't want people to force a "Stephen" connection when what they are writing fits into "The Stephen Colbert Experience" but doesn't directly concern Stephen. I believe that stretching for these kind of connections can actually lead to more randomness, so I just wanted to focus on the "It-Getting," rather than the Stephen. It-Getting is inclusive of Stephen; one cannot get "it" without "getting" him. But we certainly have plenty of articles here that reference Stephen (a lot) and show no indication of It-Getting. 3. I changed the background color of the page. This doesn't do anything for content, at all. I was hoping it would make the color scheme easier to read. If it doesn't, or if it's annoying on your displays, please change it back. That's all. I really like this idea. It's even better than my idea of giving pages a number of "Balls" or "Bears" to indicate their worthiness. --thisniss 23:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC) :Okay, just an explanation...the reason I included "randomness" is because it is so very un-Colbert. I wanted to make sure people knew that it wasn't acceptable. Of course truthiness and randomness cannot co-exist; as randomness decreases, truthiness increases. I was just trying to make sure people could see no randomness. ::I understand the desire to show them that we want NO randomness, but I feel we can take care of this by telling them (if they are scoring in the 0-2 range on "truthiness") that the reason is that they're being too random. There are other ways to be untruthy, that newbies fall prey to as well -- too liberal, too facty, etc. So ranking them in truthiness allows us to encompass all of these, and it keeps the scale clearer because all of the fields are moving in the same direction (all ranking for things we do want, which means all 0-5 have the same values). :We can always use bears and balls as a way to measure the 0-5 scale. Afterall, 0-5 what? Bears or balls, of course!--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 01:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC) ::Nah, the colors are way better. But oh my god. I just remembered the year I spent doing surveys for a market research company, back in the (horrible) day. Wow, that was deeply and needfully repressed. I wonder what they would have thought if I'd suggested having a client rank something on a "balls to bears" scale! (Nielsen ratings would be more interesting, and more accurate, I bet)--thisniss 03:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC) I just had what I hope is actually a good idea: it might be worth our time (by which I could mean my time, since you have obviously got way too much on your plate already) to rework Wikiality:Truthiness and use this as the "truthiness" we link to in the scale, rather than the article truthiness. That way, we can include the "no random," "not too facty," "not too liberal," etc. We can make the Wikiality:Truthiness page reflect what the scale is "grading" them on. And again, by "we," I mean "we," but also mean to say that "I" will take a shot at the revision tomorrow. :) I can draft something similar for "It-Getting," to differentiate it from the article and make it more like a rubric for "grading," too - if you feel that would be helpful.--thisniss 03:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC) ::This is why I would rather discuss these kinds of things off the maihn page, so to speak. So we can haggle over these things and keep talk pages open to other matters. Go ahead and post your idea, and if anyone else wants to, they can adjust as they see fit. I don't want anyone to feel their input isn't welcome when it is. Thank you for the feedback.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 03:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC) :::Just saw your example, and your "hmmm." If you want, I can try to put my shameful surveying past to use and come up with a "scale" example for you tomorrow, too. It shouldn't take me very long, but I can't do it tonight. I think I know what you need (for the "what's a 2 vs. a 3" problem), and can work out something neither too rigid nor too vague that you can tweak as you see fit. Leave me a note if you want this, and I'll do it in the morning.--thisniss 03:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC) ::Add it, add it, input is always good. If someone else doesn't like it, or can improve on it, they are welcome to do so!--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 03:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC) ::: I put up a chart where we can put in some brief generic descriptions. Feel free to use or not. I will try to fill in the fields later, or if someone else wants to that would be great, too. --thisniss 18:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Grading Scale Chart Thanks for filling in the chart values, and I'm sorry I never got back to it (I got distracted...). It looks GREAT, by the way. I particularly loved "1000 epileptic monkeys" - made me snarf. I changed "Republican" to "American high school student" because I believe this truthier (if also facty). I also de-linked Half Hour News Hour because it looked weird to me to have a single link in the whole chart. It's almost like an endorsement if we only link one thing. But obviously, if you feel strongly that folks need the link for reference, you can re-link. Other than that, for my vote I'd say this is ready to go. Kudos, and thanks again for doing all this!--thisniss 01:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC) :I changed American HS Student to Homeschooled.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 01:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)